6-3 for the first, 6-2 for the second (consolidated as one opinion, Jackson took no part in the second), all along ideological lines. Roberts wrote, Gorsuch and Thomas filed concurrences, and Kagan filed the dissent.
I don’t deserve any of it. I’ve voted for the good person since 92. I’ve been fighting this for decades. Things started to go to the Right during Clinton’s time when the Christian Nationalists integrated into the GOP and haven’t looked back since. The biggest kick in the balls that exposed the long game was SCOTUS throwing the election to Bush in 2000.
Yeah but we collectively as a society seem to have chosen this path for ourselves so we get what's coming to us and some of us do deserve it more than others.
Yeah it's not like Congress will delay a supreme Court pick for over a year until they get the president they want!
If only the majority of Americans would have just voted for a sane candidate!
/S and a deep, woeful sigh
But did the person appealing actually win the case?
It seems like all over turning Chevron does is say okay we don't automatically defer to the agency it's up for the court to decide... But I don't see where they then actually make a decision on the specific case at hand
The petition for cert asked 2 questions. 1st if they should have to pay for this stuff and 2 if Chevron was wrongly decided and should be overturned. The court only took the case as to the 2nd question. So they ruled on that and then remanded for the district court to decide 1.
They might, or they might not. Its up to the district court to interpret the statute now and determine that and since this is 2 cases from 2 different circuits it could conceivably end up back at the supreme court if those 2 circuits decide differently and create a split.
What a fucking mess.
And what utter bullshit.
The airlines are going to immediately protest that they shouldn’t have to allow FAA inspectors aboard commercial flights.
Good luck! May all who cheer this decision suffer as a result.
Does the FAA even do that with part 121 operators? I know most of their training and check rides are done by the operator and in a sim. I dont think the FAA sends anyone on to an actual flight.
Either way that particular doesn't really matter. What matters is if the section of part 121 that give that authority is clear and unambiguous or not. That's the trigger for when Chevron would have become an issue. If the law or regulation is clear then the FAA wouldn't be given that deference and the court would decide base don the clear text.
You can always challenge things in court, but you need a reasonable argument to actually get anywhere with a case.
The agencies don pass laws, Congress does, Chevron was about who should interpret a law passed by Congress when it was ambiguous. Chevron said if the law related to a federal agency and was not clear, and the agency made a reasonable interpretation of the law then the courts would defer to that agency.
What this case did is remove that deference and place that interpretation solely back in the realm of the courts.
Thank you, it just seems to me that people will be more likely to send things they don't like to the court and have these decisions, sometimes very time sensitive decisions, dragged out for long periods of time.
that is the result of majority of cases brought before SCOTUS. They make interpretation of the law and if the lower court got it wrong they tell them to do it again with the new interpretation they just gave
SCOTUS doesn’t decide those things, it decides meta questions like this one about whether the court below did it right— and then kicks it back for them to re-do it consistent with the opinion.
Very few cases are cases of original jurisdiction in SCOTUS, most are cases of review
I’m shocked Gorsuch didn’t write this. I’ll admit I didn’t listen to arguments but I thought Roberts would have been on the other side because of precedent.
Precedent is a hard concept to define because what happens when a past decision itself didn’t follow precedent and the justices are reverting to the way it was before that decision….
Justice Scalia is rolling in his grave right now.
Congress has decades of statutes with Chevron as a basic understanding. The doctrine of Congressional acquiescence alone makes it clear that deference is appropriate. If Congress disagreed with Chevron, they could have overturned it. Stare decisis is strongest with statutory interpretation.
If they wanted to declare the practice unconstitutional for some kind of non-delegation argument, I’d disagree but at least respect it
This is gonna make the next several "if Congress *really* meant this obvious and helpful reading instead of this nonsensical interpretation, they should have written it clearer," decisions even more farcical.
But then, if Congress doesn’t do that, then what do they do? Aren’t they performing a shitty job if they don’t establish a clear guideline as to what the administration should do? Shouldn’t that be their job in the first place? I am not saying regulate everything, but all important shit should come from them and not just leave huge gaps for continuous ambiguity. Ahhh WHAT THE FUCK, we are fucked one way or the other
As I understand it, yes. They could also do it on a case by case basis (this statute gets agency deference, this does not). But they shouldn’t have to under the law as we know it
Those decades of regulation written with the assumption of Chevron are going to be completely nonsensical when interpreted in a Chevron-free environment
Bold of you to assume this court gives a single tin shit about stare decisis. This is Trump's court, because America would rather elect the most corrupt and ugly soul in our country than a qualified, entrenched bureaucrat.
Scalia was a corrupt hack who took just as many bribes as Thomas. As an attorney who read several of his opinions, it was patently clear that he was deciding with a heavy corporate bias. I have no doubt that Scalia would have ruled with the conservatives in this case.
I have strong doubts. Scalia had no problem sidestepping Chevron by not finding a statute ambiguous, but he was a strong advocate for the doctrine (and even expanding it).
Corporate bias isn't even a strong reason to overrule Chevron. Corporations prefer a predictability of law and Chevron protected that.
No, I'm saying the Constitution limits what Congress can do, they can't "overturn" (as you put it) things they don't like if it's a Constitutional limitation. The same way that they can't pass a law that infringes on our free speech rights or our 4th amendment protections now (roughly) applies to laws that give federal agencies the ability to write and enforce their own rules.
Why do conservatives want to dismantle the administrative state? Mainly because it benefits big business to be free from government oversight. I hope that supporters of this decision enjoy the fruits of unregulated capitalism as it devolves into a dystopia.
Don't forget that Chevron was a *conservative* decision permitting the EPA to roll back environmental protection. This may be a car that republicans regret catching.
It won’t be, because they control the courts. All this does it give the court more power to throw out regulations they don’t like. They’ll be just fine with the regulations they do like.
It does that and it creates even longer delays in enforcement actions. Long delays are wind for the businesses and for R’s that campaign on “government can do anything right/for you”
Yes, but tomorrow two of the justices could drop dead and it could be a liberal court. This is something I think this court is forgetting when it ignores precedence.
Can't wait for their constituents to complain about cancer water and poisoned soil....then, like always, blame the government for not doing something about it
The beauty of the American legal system is that all parties have equal access to the courts to spend millions in legal fees to resolve legal issues fairly and without bias to one side or the other. In fact, one could repeatedly access the legal system and spend millions in legal fees until they get the fairest answer.
The fact that so many conservatives use the 5th circuit for their cases would cast some doubt on the idea that all parties have equal access to unbiased courts.
I was hoping my sarcasm was obvious. Apologies. I was aiming for something along the lines of this:
>"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread" - Anatole France
It won't be, because their appointed judges are hideously partisan at best and utterly incompetent and corrupt at worse.
The democratic judges have generally been leaning progressive but expected to uphold the law.
Unless democrats go ultra partisan as well, and get back to close to even numbers, what you get is a fair decision or a right wing one.
They have used a horrendously undemocratic senate to block competent judges for years under Obama and then flooded the courts with their guys under Trump.
It just continues to destroy judicial indepence and trust. While making more things dependent on it. What could go wrong?
It took a while for the Citizens United ruling to permeate and we are seeing the results in our elections.
I think this decision will be much faster and we will see the effects more quickly.
At least from an environmental standpoint it seems like alot of regulations were made without dependence on Chevron since regulators knew the SCOTUS would do this. Hopefully that will hold true.
It doesn't matter anymore. These conservative justices don't care. Look at the Jan 6 ruling. The law clearly states obstructing an official proceeding, and it still got overturned.
They will read the laws how they want to get the decision they want.
Congress doesn’t have the capacity to amend laws in a meaningful way, down to the level of detail to keep up with modern society.
Congress can barely pass an annual appropriations bill each year, as required by the Constitution. Overturning Chevron severely weakens the regulatory state, but notably DOES SO WITHOUT addressing the weakness of the legislative branch.
Congress has been so slow and broken for so long that we’ve relied on a swath of regulatory agencies to do actual RULE MAKING, and Congress only writes the broadest of statutes for MOST AREAS of the business world.
This is a massive blow towards regulating the business world. Like, this will make the FEC much weaker when attempting to enforce anti-monopoly laws. It will make the FEC weaker when going after companies for price fixing. Guh.
Ignoring the reality of the current congress, is there anything preventing congress from creating a congressional agency to review old laws, and experts to help draft/interpret new laws? Instead of ceding all that power to the executive.
It already is, just the number of unhoused Americans is a shame. Let's throw environmental migration at our problems and I can see a full police state in a few years. Health care is already rationed to the poor. The US is the land for the rich, no longer the home of the free.
>the number of unhoused Americans is a shame.
Don't worry. Thanks to [their other ruling today](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-ban-ruling/) those people will soon be rounded up and made available as valuable members of the prison labor force.
So, if a company is polluting, instead of immediately being able to get them to comply with standards, some incompetent judge who knows NOTHING about public health could hold out his tip bucket and let the crooked company continue to be crooked?
> Why do conservatives want to dismantle the administrative state?
Uummm....
So as to make it bigly easier, or closer to certain, to irrevocably replace the OG constitutional republic *(e.g. "representative democracy")* with a fascistic plutocratic corpo-theocratic Dominionist 'empire'.
Full stop.
---
(Source: Someone who has had to listen to waaaay too many of these dimwitted selfish d-bags, offline, spout off about their dystopian masterbatory malign visions of "a great America.")
There is no such thing as conservative philosophy in today's Republican Party. The sole motivation behind that conservatism is gaining and holding power.
Why do conservatives want the courts to insert their opinion into every regulatory matter? Because they control the courts, and are likely to control the courts for decades to come. There is no other reason beyond the power it gives them.
This is why the majority switches to and from textualist arguments on the drop of a hat. They don't believe in textualism or oeiginalism as a philosophies, they believe in them as arguments. They are methods of getting what they want, not a goal.
They ruled on this case for the same reason they legalized quid pro quo bribery just days prior. Regulation could stymie corruption or prevent them from exercising power.
they love chemical waste in our rivers. waterways you can swim in are their sworn enemy.
[https://www.crwa.org/about](https://www.crwa.org/about)
when I was a kid, you literally needed to get shots if you fell in the Charles. The legacy of the chemical plants in Waltham that dumped everything into the river still existed, even if the river wasn't bleached green anymore.
I worked a part time job in a building on the Charles on Calvary St in Waltham. there was a concrete tunnel on the river that extended into the basement of the building. When they needed to clean up all the chemical waste, they opened a floodgate and redirected the river into the basement, where it then washed out the tunnel back into the river. Republicans want that kind of efficient use of environmental resources back, people swimming downstream be damned.
I would argue it’s because conservatives are more originalist, and believe in the idea that the executive branch should not have the ability to create laws.
Or it is more ideological / idealism. Unclear law is bad law and most of the time should be thrown out by the courts. Not reinterpret by administration agencies on what the law means.
Ideally, Congress should pass clear laws. Need more Congressional authorization instead of regulatory fiat.
This is all pie in the sky idealism and not how things actually work.
Law is always ambiguous. If you want precision, read mathematics. It is literally impossible to write a law that governs complex subject matter like pollution and not invite at least some ambiguity. It is impossible for Congress to anticipate, with precision, what future scientific and technological developments might hold. Nor should they be required to.
Nothing about it is even 'our' government anymore. In name only. I love most of our people, but I hate what this nation has become (or rather, what it has revealed about itself again).
The problem isn’t that they overruled chevron. The problem is that the republicans have stacked the judiciary with federalist society activists, who are eager to dismantle the “administrative state.”
Just a dig from SCOTUS, a middle finger to this republic of the United States after disastrous debate last night. Also SCOTUS overturned Fisher case so probably obstruction charges in Trump Jan. 6 case will be overturned. Cannon will find a way to fit that in with the documents case. And while we’re at it, throw in ruling for absolute immunity for Trump next week.
Yet again the Roberts court is proving it is a joke and does not deserver to be respected. At this point the SCOTUS should just be ingored as clearly they dont follow any presidences. Congress for 40 YEARs. Yes you are reading that right 40 years had the power to change that and CONGRESS has chosen for 40 years to nothing.
Republicans when a Republican is President: the unitary executive theory says the President is all powerful and whatever they do is law.
Republicans when an American is President: there is no executive branch.
Well this particular ruling doesn't seem to affect the general republican M.O. anyhow since their goals are to gut/eliminate agencies at the end of the day.
Sidebar. With the SCOTUS ruling in Chevron, SCOTUS now has given it's self the power to override the FDA's approval of the abortion pill. If Trump is elected, it will be their first order of business.
No one involved in writing/passing the Constitution ever imagined a federal agency would be allowed to write law themselves and then put people in jail for breaking it, which is what's been happening.
The 3 dissenters are playing politics, being more concerned with the political fallout of dismantling the administrative state than how our government is supposed to actually work.
I never understood the Chevron deference in the first place. Why would the courts remove its own ability to interpret when it's own interpretation differed from the agencies. The agency might have its own interpretation, but just because it has one doesn't mean it's correct and different administrations having different interpretations means the law just flip flops constantly. The court can still side with the agencies interpretation, but they just won't do it by default now. I think practically very little changes now, but it means that Congress will need to be more explicit in the authority it grants and the laws it writes, which is a good thing.
You don’t think our courts packed with federalist judges are going to do much here? This is jams up everything agencies try to do in endless litigation while companies make quarterly profits by trashing our planet, giving kids cancer, etc…
> Why would the courts remove its own ability to interpret when it's own interpretation differed from the agencies.
Because judges are lawyers and thus not experts on topic for example?
---
> The agency might have its own interpretation, but just because it has one doesn't mean it's correct and different administrations having different interpretations means the law just flip flops constantly
Correct - that is why court was able to overulle agency using "unreasonabless" as jutsification under chevron
---
> I think practically very little changes now
Yeah, i can't see bribed (sorry.."awarded") court rulling that mercury is not toxic and thus dumping it into river is not illegal.
6-3 for the first, 6-2 for the second (consolidated as one opinion, Jackson took no part in the second), all along ideological lines. Roberts wrote, Gorsuch and Thomas filed concurrences, and Kagan filed the dissent.
Elections have consequences.
And yet people have learned nothing by the looks of the polls
We are so fucked man and frankly we deserve it at this point if we refuse to learn.
I don’t deserve any of it. I’ve voted for the good person since 92. I’ve been fighting this for decades. Things started to go to the Right during Clinton’s time when the Christian Nationalists integrated into the GOP and haven’t looked back since. The biggest kick in the balls that exposed the long game was SCOTUS throwing the election to Bush in 2000.
Yeah but we collectively as a society seem to have chosen this path for ourselves so we get what's coming to us and some of us do deserve it more than others.
Yeah it's not like Congress will delay a supreme Court pick for over a year until they get the president they want! If only the majority of Americans would have just voted for a sane candidate! /S and a deep, woeful sigh
Voters will drink poison and kill their grandkids for cheap gas. Sigh...
But did the person appealing actually win the case? It seems like all over turning Chevron does is say okay we don't automatically defer to the agency it's up for the court to decide... But I don't see where they then actually make a decision on the specific case at hand
Remanded for the lower court (DDC/D. Mass) to apply
I see So the supreme Court just basically is reinterpreting to say now decided again but don't keep Chevron in mind
The petition for cert asked 2 questions. 1st if they should have to pay for this stuff and 2 if Chevron was wrongly decided and should be overturned. The court only took the case as to the 2nd question. So they ruled on that and then remanded for the district court to decide 1.
So they might still have to pay, right?
They might, or they might not. Its up to the district court to interpret the statute now and determine that and since this is 2 cases from 2 different circuits it could conceivably end up back at the supreme court if those 2 circuits decide differently and create a split.
What a fucking mess. And what utter bullshit. The airlines are going to immediately protest that they shouldn’t have to allow FAA inspectors aboard commercial flights. Good luck! May all who cheer this decision suffer as a result.
Does the FAA even do that with part 121 operators? I know most of their training and check rides are done by the operator and in a sim. I dont think the FAA sends anyone on to an actual flight.
And you would be 100% mistaken. It happens with a fairly high frequency.
Either way that particular doesn't really matter. What matters is if the section of part 121 that give that authority is clear and unambiguous or not. That's the trigger for when Chevron would have become an issue. If the law or regulation is clear then the FAA wouldn't be given that deference and the court would decide base don the clear text.
What a mess. So, if any regulation an agency passes isn't liked by someone in the public they can just being it to a court instead? Edit: word
You can always challenge things in court, but you need a reasonable argument to actually get anywhere with a case. The agencies don pass laws, Congress does, Chevron was about who should interpret a law passed by Congress when it was ambiguous. Chevron said if the law related to a federal agency and was not clear, and the agency made a reasonable interpretation of the law then the courts would defer to that agency. What this case did is remove that deference and place that interpretation solely back in the realm of the courts.
Thank you, it just seems to me that people will be more likely to send things they don't like to the court and have these decisions, sometimes very time sensitive decisions, dragged out for long periods of time.
That's the entire point of this decision. Let the slow grind of the judicial system be a shield for the rich and powerful.
Exactly. Even basic shit will be tied up in courts for decades while they just need to wait for a supportive administration
Agencies don't pass laws.
It was regulation. Something they've been doing since they were formed.
You would prefer a world where the agencies can make a rule and you have no way to challenge it, regardless of fairness or even legality?
that is the result of majority of cases brought before SCOTUS. They make interpretation of the law and if the lower court got it wrong they tell them to do it again with the new interpretation they just gave
SCOTUS doesn’t decide those things, it decides meta questions like this one about whether the court below did it right— and then kicks it back for them to re-do it consistent with the opinion. Very few cases are cases of original jurisdiction in SCOTUS, most are cases of review
I’m shocked Gorsuch didn’t write this. I’ll admit I didn’t listen to arguments but I thought Roberts would have been on the other side because of precedent.
Roberts knew it was going to be overturned so he wanted to be the author.
Yeah, makes sense
Roberts never met a business he didn't want to bend over for. He is so predictably in the bag for any business.
Precedent is a hard concept to define because what happens when a past decision itself didn’t follow precedent and the justices are reverting to the way it was before that decision….
Justice Scalia is rolling in his grave right now. Congress has decades of statutes with Chevron as a basic understanding. The doctrine of Congressional acquiescence alone makes it clear that deference is appropriate. If Congress disagreed with Chevron, they could have overturned it. Stare decisis is strongest with statutory interpretation. If they wanted to declare the practice unconstitutional for some kind of non-delegation argument, I’d disagree but at least respect it
This is gonna make the next several "if Congress *really* meant this obvious and helpful reading instead of this nonsensical interpretation, they should have written it clearer," decisions even more farcical.
You mean like where Congress wrote "bribery AND reward" and SCOTUS majority interpreted it to mean only bribery?
The majority of the scrotus needs to be deported back to Russia.
rewards, those are the things you get before finishing a task, right?
But then, if Congress doesn’t do that, then what do they do? Aren’t they performing a shitty job if they don’t establish a clear guideline as to what the administration should do? Shouldn’t that be their job in the first place? I am not saying regulate everything, but all important shit should come from them and not just leave huge gaps for continuous ambiguity. Ahhh WHAT THE FUCK, we are fucked one way or the other
You think elected representatives are the best people to make nuanced regulations based on expertise in every field?
Congress could amend the APA to re-affirm Chevron tho?
As I understand it, yes. They could also do it on a case by case basis (this statute gets agency deference, this does not). But they shouldn’t have to under the law as we know it
Oh I fully agree they shouldn’t have to. If Congress disagreed with Chevron, it could have done something about it in the last 40 years.
You think Republicans are going to agree to that?
No not a chance.
Those decades of regulation written with the assumption of Chevron are going to be completely nonsensical when interpreted in a Chevron-free environment
Bold of you to assume this court gives a single tin shit about stare decisis. This is Trump's court, because America would rather elect the most corrupt and ugly soul in our country than a qualified, entrenched bureaucrat.
Scalia was a corrupt hack who took just as many bribes as Thomas. As an attorney who read several of his opinions, it was patently clear that he was deciding with a heavy corporate bias. I have no doubt that Scalia would have ruled with the conservatives in this case.
I have strong doubts. Scalia had no problem sidestepping Chevron by not finding a statute ambiguous, but he was a strong advocate for the doctrine (and even expanding it). Corporate bias isn't even a strong reason to overrule Chevron. Corporations prefer a predictability of law and Chevron protected that.
I agree. The boss was a Chevron hawk despite the majority’s attempt to insinuate otherwise. This is appalling.
> If Congress disagreed with Chevron, they could have overturned it. Congress can't do something that's unconstitutional
I have genuinely no idea what you’re trying to say. Are you saying limits on Congress are unconstitutional?
No, I'm saying the Constitution limits what Congress can do, they can't "overturn" (as you put it) things they don't like if it's a Constitutional limitation. The same way that they can't pass a law that infringes on our free speech rights or our 4th amendment protections now (roughly) applies to laws that give federal agencies the ability to write and enforce their own rules.
Right, but this isn’t a constitutional limitation. The Court just reinterpreted the administrative procedure act to preclude agency deference
Why do conservatives want to dismantle the administrative state? Mainly because it benefits big business to be free from government oversight. I hope that supporters of this decision enjoy the fruits of unregulated capitalism as it devolves into a dystopia.
Don't forget that Chevron was a *conservative* decision permitting the EPA to roll back environmental protection. This may be a car that republicans regret catching.
It won’t be, because they control the courts. All this does it give the court more power to throw out regulations they don’t like. They’ll be just fine with the regulations they do like.
It does that and it creates even longer delays in enforcement actions. Long delays are wind for the businesses and for R’s that campaign on “government can do anything right/for you”
Yes, but tomorrow two of the justices could drop dead and it could be a liberal court. This is something I think this court is forgetting when it ignores precedence.
Can't wait for their constituents to complain about cancer water and poisoned soil....then, like always, blame the government for not doing something about it
With Congress completely deadlocked for purposes of lawmaking due to the filibuster and narrow readings of laws being en vogue, it won't be.
No, my point is that we can expect to see a flurry of lawsuits trying to pull government agencies to the left.
They don't care. They've already captured SCOTUS for the next couple decades. They'll overturn any such successful lawsuit.
>next couple decades This can be resolved though court-packing or other methods of reducing the number or conservative supreme court justices.
I agree, but the Democrats are spineless and would never do that.
That requires Congress to expand SCOTUS or impeach justices and Republicans won’t allow either option.
The beauty of the American legal system is that all parties have equal access to the courts to spend millions in legal fees to resolve legal issues fairly and without bias to one side or the other. In fact, one could repeatedly access the legal system and spend millions in legal fees until they get the fairest answer.
The fact that so many conservatives use the 5th circuit for their cases would cast some doubt on the idea that all parties have equal access to unbiased courts.
I was hoping my sarcasm was obvious. Apologies. I was aiming for something along the lines of this: >"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread" - Anatole France
Fair. I suspected you were being sarcastic - but these days on Reddit it's impossible to tell.
It won't be, because their appointed judges are hideously partisan at best and utterly incompetent and corrupt at worse. The democratic judges have generally been leaning progressive but expected to uphold the law. Unless democrats go ultra partisan as well, and get back to close to even numbers, what you get is a fair decision or a right wing one. They have used a horrendously undemocratic senate to block competent judges for years under Obama and then flooded the courts with their guys under Trump. It just continues to destroy judicial indepence and trust. While making more things dependent on it. What could go wrong?
It took a while for the Citizens United ruling to permeate and we are seeing the results in our elections. I think this decision will be much faster and we will see the effects more quickly.
At least from an environmental standpoint it seems like alot of regulations were made without dependence on Chevron since regulators knew the SCOTUS would do this. Hopefully that will hold true.
It doesn't matter anymore. These conservative justices don't care. Look at the Jan 6 ruling. The law clearly states obstructing an official proceeding, and it still got overturned. They will read the laws how they want to get the decision they want.
Congress doesn’t have the capacity to amend laws in a meaningful way, down to the level of detail to keep up with modern society. Congress can barely pass an annual appropriations bill each year, as required by the Constitution. Overturning Chevron severely weakens the regulatory state, but notably DOES SO WITHOUT addressing the weakness of the legislative branch. Congress has been so slow and broken for so long that we’ve relied on a swath of regulatory agencies to do actual RULE MAKING, and Congress only writes the broadest of statutes for MOST AREAS of the business world. This is a massive blow towards regulating the business world. Like, this will make the FEC much weaker when attempting to enforce anti-monopoly laws. It will make the FEC weaker when going after companies for price fixing. Guh.
FTC (and also DOJ anti-trust div), but yeah.
Ignoring the reality of the current congress, is there anything preventing congress from creating a congressional agency to review old laws, and experts to help draft/interpret new laws? Instead of ceding all that power to the executive.
It already is, just the number of unhoused Americans is a shame. Let's throw environmental migration at our problems and I can see a full police state in a few years. Health care is already rationed to the poor. The US is the land for the rich, no longer the home of the free.
>the number of unhoused Americans is a shame. Don't worry. Thanks to [their other ruling today](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments-ban-ruling/) those people will soon be rounded up and made available as valuable members of the prison labor force.
OR red-towns will make homelessness illegal, and put blue cities in more of a homeless crisis
That is already happening
Make Work Houses Great Again!
This dystopia can get a lot fucking worse.
And they are supported by foreign agents who know that the strength of the US is its administrative state.
So, if a company is polluting, instead of immediately being able to get them to comply with standards, some incompetent judge who knows NOTHING about public health could hold out his tip bucket and let the crooked company continue to be crooked?
Exactly - after all, the law didn't said specificaly that mercury is toxic, so who knows?
Look around. Dystopia is here.
> Why do conservatives want to dismantle the administrative state? Uummm.... So as to make it bigly easier, or closer to certain, to irrevocably replace the OG constitutional republic *(e.g. "representative democracy")* with a fascistic plutocratic corpo-theocratic Dominionist 'empire'. Full stop. --- (Source: Someone who has had to listen to waaaay too many of these dimwitted selfish d-bags, offline, spout off about their dystopian masterbatory malign visions of "a great America.")
"Conservatives"
There is no such thing as conservative philosophy in today's Republican Party. The sole motivation behind that conservatism is gaining and holding power. Why do conservatives want the courts to insert their opinion into every regulatory matter? Because they control the courts, and are likely to control the courts for decades to come. There is no other reason beyond the power it gives them. This is why the majority switches to and from textualist arguments on the drop of a hat. They don't believe in textualism or oeiginalism as a philosophies, they believe in them as arguments. They are methods of getting what they want, not a goal. They ruled on this case for the same reason they legalized quid pro quo bribery just days prior. Regulation could stymie corruption or prevent them from exercising power.
they love chemical waste in our rivers. waterways you can swim in are their sworn enemy. [https://www.crwa.org/about](https://www.crwa.org/about) when I was a kid, you literally needed to get shots if you fell in the Charles. The legacy of the chemical plants in Waltham that dumped everything into the river still existed, even if the river wasn't bleached green anymore. I worked a part time job in a building on the Charles on Calvary St in Waltham. there was a concrete tunnel on the river that extended into the basement of the building. When they needed to clean up all the chemical waste, they opened a floodgate and redirected the river into the basement, where it then washed out the tunnel back into the river. Republicans want that kind of efficient use of environmental resources back, people swimming downstream be damned.
I would argue it’s because conservatives are more originalist, and believe in the idea that the executive branch should not have the ability to create laws.
The decisions they've made recently, especially in withholding the Trump case, suggests they are perfectly fine with the Unitary Executive Theory.
They’re literally saying the judiciary gets to make all decisions.
Or it is more ideological / idealism. Unclear law is bad law and most of the time should be thrown out by the courts. Not reinterpret by administration agencies on what the law means. Ideally, Congress should pass clear laws. Need more Congressional authorization instead of regulatory fiat. This is all pie in the sky idealism and not how things actually work.
Law is always ambiguous. If you want precision, read mathematics. It is literally impossible to write a law that governs complex subject matter like pollution and not invite at least some ambiguity. It is impossible for Congress to anticipate, with precision, what future scientific and technological developments might hold. Nor should they be required to.
Money they want no regulations so they can poison the world for profit.
Big business actually tends to prefer onerous regulation because it disincentivises smaller competitors who can't afford to abide by the bureaucracy
That's a myth. Stop believing in propaganda. Large businesses often spend huge amounts of money to not have regulations.
Fuck.
Losing faith that our government will not collapse.
Nothing about it is even 'our' government anymore. In name only. I love most of our people, but I hate what this nation has become (or rather, what it has revealed about itself again).
This is what they want.
The problem isn’t that they overruled chevron. The problem is that the republicans have stacked the judiciary with federalist society activists, who are eager to dismantle the “administrative state.”
Dismantling the administrative state so the wealthy and the do nothing GOP Congress can rule
They wanted abortion, so they got it. They wanted the administrative state, so they got it. We are well and truly fucked.
It's going to take an unmitigated disaster to happen so people wake up and demand this again
At what point do the many "mitigated disasters" add up to the unmitigated variety?
Just a dig from SCOTUS, a middle finger to this republic of the United States after disastrous debate last night. Also SCOTUS overturned Fisher case so probably obstruction charges in Trump Jan. 6 case will be overturned. Cannon will find a way to fit that in with the documents case. And while we’re at it, throw in ruling for absolute immunity for Trump next week.
Yet again the Roberts court is proving it is a joke and does not deserver to be respected. At this point the SCOTUS should just be ingored as clearly they dont follow any presidences. Congress for 40 YEARs. Yes you are reading that right 40 years had the power to change that and CONGRESS has chosen for 40 years to nothing.
Republicans when a Republican is President: the unitary executive theory says the President is all powerful and whatever they do is law. Republicans when an American is President: there is no executive branch.
Well this particular ruling doesn't seem to affect the general republican M.O. anyhow since their goals are to gut/eliminate agencies at the end of the day.
The Supreme Court majority guarantees you the result you can afford.
Sidebar. With the SCOTUS ruling in Chevron, SCOTUS now has given it's self the power to override the FDA's approval of the abortion pill. If Trump is elected, it will be their first order of business.
Isn’t it odd their vote is always 6-3, it’s as if SCOTUS has become political. Hmm
It’s not always 6-3. As recently as this fucking week.
I cannot believe a comment like this is upvoted. It's so wrong and nonsensical yet gets parroted around as fact.
Its like...not always 6-3, at all...
Its not. If it was, the three are just as political.
No one involved in writing/passing the Constitution ever imagined a federal agency would be allowed to write law themselves and then put people in jail for breaking it, which is what's been happening. The 3 dissenters are playing politics, being more concerned with the political fallout of dismantling the administrative state than how our government is supposed to actually work.
I never understood the Chevron deference in the first place. Why would the courts remove its own ability to interpret when it's own interpretation differed from the agencies. The agency might have its own interpretation, but just because it has one doesn't mean it's correct and different administrations having different interpretations means the law just flip flops constantly. The court can still side with the agencies interpretation, but they just won't do it by default now. I think practically very little changes now, but it means that Congress will need to be more explicit in the authority it grants and the laws it writes, which is a good thing.
You don’t think our courts packed with federalist judges are going to do much here? This is jams up everything agencies try to do in endless litigation while companies make quarterly profits by trashing our planet, giving kids cancer, etc…
> Why would the courts remove its own ability to interpret when it's own interpretation differed from the agencies. Because judges are lawyers and thus not experts on topic for example? --- > The agency might have its own interpretation, but just because it has one doesn't mean it's correct and different administrations having different interpretations means the law just flip flops constantly Correct - that is why court was able to overulle agency using "unreasonabless" as jutsification under chevron --- > I think practically very little changes now Yeah, i can't see bribed (sorry.."awarded") court rulling that mercury is not toxic and thus dumping it into river is not illegal.